5.1 General Sector Knowledge of Robotics is Low
The session started with an open discussion about what participants knew about robotics, asking if (1) they had deployed a robot, and their experience, as well as (2) what the sector experience was. Overall, participants had very low levels of knowledge, awareness, and practical experience of robotics. Two organisations had direct experience with a service robot, a chore robot (also a Lamson) and a humanoid robot (Pepper). Both returned them after 2 months, as described below.
Pepper, the Robotic Receptionist - from “wow” to “what”. This aged care facility was excited to trial Pepper, describing how they thought it was “novel and nice... the funkiest, coolest little thing”. Pepper was deployed to act as receptionist in their gym area, to enable bookings for exercise programs. However, despite the original excitement, there was ultimately a sense of disappointment in that Pepper did not really add significant value, with the initial “wow” factor becoming “so what?”. While they acknowledged that they did not fully activate the robot, there was a sense that Pepper did not significantly enhance the experience or streamline processes – and after two months, they returned the robot.
Rosie, the Lamson Transport Robot - “excitement became struggle”.
A second aged care facility described their experience, in 2019, with a robotic laundry and food transport system in their new 150 bed facility. Intentionally designed to be non-institutional without long corridors, there were 5 x 30-bedroom communities (each with their own dinning and lounge rooms) featuring widened corridors to enable a robot transport system. Their chosen system was a Lamson Autonomous Mobile Robot (AMR) designed to save staff time by automating trolley transport and transporting meals, linen, waste, supplies, and clothing, see Fig. 4.
This RACF was an early adopter, working with a USA-based supplier. Unfortunately, they were unable “to get the robot to the point of efficiency”. As the CEO explained, “excitement became struggle”, with two months of challenge where “more time was spent re-setting the robot than using”. It was unable to operate autonomously and always seemed to require one person to supervise it, “stopping at every turn, always needing someone to follow up – it needed to be able to do things away from the team... and that was not our experience”.
They experienced three specific issues. Firstly, navigation challenges. Despite intentionally designing wider corridors to facilitate movement, the robot was unable to efficiently navigate the shorter corridors and the dynamic, often cluttered, environment of aged care – which meant it could not reliably and independently transport laundry and food without supervision. Secondly, operational errors. They reported that the robot frequently experienced operational errors (technical malfunctions, software issues, difficulties in handling various tasks), leading it to often being “in a thousand pieces, on the floor”. The robot required continuous supervision, with “more time spent re-setting the robot than using it". Thirdly, safety concerns. They described a notable incident where the robot failed to sense the presence of an older resident in an elevator, leading to the resident being trapped. While this was a one-off event, combined with the ongoing operational challenges and the fact that the robot could not operate autonomously, they ultimately decided to return the robot after only two months of use.
Their experience with robotic transport was disappointing, with their original high expectations not met. The challenges they encountered, including navigation issues, operational errors, a notable safety incident and the need for constant supervision, highlight the complexity of adapting robotic technology to real-world environments. However, they noted that occurred several years ago, in 2019, and felt that many of the problems they encountered had likely been resolved – and thus were keen to experiment with robots again.
5.2 Reimagining and co-designing a chore robot
Most of the workshop centred on reimagining the chore robot, HELPII, with teams (2–3 industry participants, working with 1 research team member) completing the custom design canvas we developed. First, however, there was a group brainstorming session to consider what the robot could do, as reported in Table 1. Teams then picked one idea (or generated another) to develop as a concept, completing the canvas in Fig. 2. They were also given a printed image of HELPII with a series of pre-cut pieces of papers with textures, colours, and robot parts to use for collaging and drawing their concept further.
Table 1
Tasks assigned to chore robot.
Category | Task |
Kitchen/Garden | Clear tables and serve residents Garden weed, water and mow |
Clean/Laundry | Clean bathrooms Operate laundry machine – washing, folding, sorting, and delivery. Shampoo carpets. |
Move and fetch | Move residents to and from activities. Move furniture and set up activity spaces and rooms (before/after meals). Fetch things, such as tissues; remote control: pick up rubbish; socks; water, etc. Install a vending machine on top, and have it circulate offering food (note that it is restricted to the resident’s diet). |
Social and Care tasks | Prompt residents: meals, activities, medications De-escalate behaviour, distract or influence moods (people with dementia). Monitor health: sleep, blood pressure, etc. Provide therapeutic touch, especially in palliative care context, for example, by holding a warm wheat bag. Link with nurse call system. |
Each group developed and then pitched their ideas, articulating the value proposition, the business model, their design concept, and the name of their chore robot. Three teams focussed on versions of cleaning robots, and one on catering food.
Group 1: The Green, Clean, Calming Machine. Group 1's robot concept, named the Green, Clean, Calming Machine, is an environmentally friendly cleaning robot. This robot performs cleaning tasks, including vacuuming, mopping, upholstery cleaning, air filtering and scent diffusing, while simultaneously monitoring residents in the background for distress or hazards. The robot's features include retractable arms for dusting and mopping, multidirectional wheels, and a height that allows it to fit beneath dining tables like a Roomba.
To enhance its usability, the robot is operated and programmed by cleaning staff using tablets and voice commands, considering the staff's diverse multicultural and language skills. The robot's soft, fabric-based material covering, soft edges, and warm-toned calming glow aim to make it approachable but still look like a machine, especially for patients with dementia. It is strategically placed in common areas, with one robot per facility wing, collaborating with the cleaning staff.
Apart from its cleaning functions, the Green Cleaning Machine incorporates UV sterilization for infection control, and it is designed to clean its own body, including wheels and the outer shell. The group envisions that the implementation of this robot will not only free up staff time but also help in hazard identification and preventing trips and falls. The overall goal is to positively impact the quality of life for aged care residents.
Group 2: Sadie. Group 2 reimagined the chore robot as a professional, engaging, and non-gender-specific robot designed for a variety of tasks within an aged care facility. The robot's primary responsibilities include cleaning general areas three times a day (post-meals), air purification, utilising fresheners, and implementing infectious disease prevention measures, such as those against viruses like coronavirus. Also, it is designed to comply with food safety standards.
The robot's physical attributes are characterized by friendly eyes, a small and functional design in white, and multiple arms equipped for tasks like picking up items, using microfiber cloths, vacuuming, dusting, and sanitising. As an additional touch, the robot might even play music. Group 2 considered that residents will actively participate in its design.
Practical considerations involve a docking station, but the robot is intended for routine work throughout the entire aged care facility. Importantly, it respects privacy by requiring consent before accessing individual rooms. The robot is designed to interact with both staff and managers, fostering a collaborative environment.
To ensure ongoing performance and support, the robot will be contracted through a lease plan, with maintenance and support services readily accessible locally. At the end of each day, the robot provides a comprehensive report, contributing to transparency and accountability in its operations.
Group 3: Speedy x3. Group 3 envisions "Speedy x3," a functional and unassuming robot with a primary focus on efficiency in completing laundry chores and navigating residential aged care settings. Unlike other concepts, Speedy x3 does not have a gender or personality, prioritising a purely functional role to support residents in tasks they can no longer perform themselves.
The robot's core responsibilities focus on "getting the basics right," emphasizing seamless navigation through various environments within the aged care facility, including lifts, ramps, indoors, outdoors, and open doors. Its inconspicuous design ensures it does not stand out, contributing to a quiet and unobtrusive presence. Speedy x3's priority tasks revolve around the laundry process. It adeptly collects laundry, transfers it to laundry machines, turns the machines on, folds the laundry, re-labels items, and returns them to residents' rooms. The design considerations include a focus on being inconspicuous, quiet, equipped with a smell eliminator, capable of remote maintenance, and autonomous based on staff schedules while allowing for manual override.
The business model is structured to be more cost-effective than a staff member, with the robot's annual cost not exceeding $130,000. Speedy x3 operates seven days a week, responding to voice commands and central control on the robot. The main impact Group 3 aims for is to free up staff time, minimise facility damage, and reduce exposure to noise and smells, contributing to an enhanced and efficient care environment.
Group 4: Cookii/ Foodii, your friendly catering companion. Group 4's concept, named "Cookie" or "Foodii" (name yet undecided), presents a friendly catering companion for the aged care facility. Gender-neutral and characterised by a loving personality, this robot takes on priority tasks such as menu ordering, delivery and cleanup, food quality control compliance, and engaging in social interactions with residents, staff, and all stakeholders. Designed for easy manoeuvrability and multifunctionality and equipped with visual and voice interaction capabilities, Cookie or Foodii is a versatile addition to the care environment. The robot adopts a human-like appearance with two arms and features warm colours to stimulate appetites. Limbs are uniquely coloured to assist residents in identifying safe interaction points.
In terms of functionalities, Cookie or Foodii communicates through voice-to-text or iPad technology, collaborating seamlessly with staff to serve both them and residents. It moves about as needed, ensuring it reaches various locations within the facility. Special attention is given to residents suffering from social isolation, as the robot interacts with and accompanies them, motivating social engagement during meals. Importantly, Cookie or Foodii avoids delivering an automated, impersonal service. It recognises declines in a resident's well-being and promptly reports it, showcasing a commitment to personalised care. The robot can also assist in the physical positioning of residents before feeding, ensuring their comfort and safety.
The main impact of Cookie or Foodii is the realignment of staffing priorities, allowing staff to focus more on direct care. By handling catering tasks and providing companionship to residents, the robot aims to enhance the overall care experience while fostering meaningful connections within the community. Communication through voice-to-text or iPad technology further facilitates seamless collaboration between the robot, staff, and residents.
In the follow-up interviews, which focussed on the practicality of deployment, participants (4 aged care providers and one architect) remained excited about how a chore robot might benefit, with all providers volunteering to trial the robot when needed. There was agreement that general cleaning and laundry are massively time-consuming tasks. In larger aged care facilities, such tasks are performed by cleaners and catering staff. However, in many, care staff often have to perform cleaning duties as well. Overall, there was a sense that a chore robot might potentially replace 1.5- 2FTE for general cleaning, laundry services and infection control, and this value proposition was of significant interest. Laundry, in particular, was a massive issue, especially for many regional facilities where the laundry is often externally located up to 1km from rooms [3].